ArticleNutrients2024
Tailoring the Nutritional Composition of Italian Foods to the US Nutrition5k Dataset for Food Image Recognition: Challenges and a Comparative Analysis.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraining of machine learning algorithms on dish images collected in other countries requires possible sources of systematic discrepancies, including country-specific food composition databases (FCDBs), to be tackled. The US Nutrition5k project provides for ~5000 dish images and related dish- and ingredient-level information on mass, energy, and macronutrients from the US FCDB. The aim of this study is to (1) identify challenges/solutions in linking the nutritional composition of Italian foods with food images from Nutrition5k and (2) assess potential differences in nutrient content estimated across the Italian and US FCDBs and their determinants.
methodsAfter food matching, expert data curation, and handling of missing values, dish-level ingredients from Nutrition5k were integrated with the Italian-FCDB-specific nutritional composition (86 components); dish-specific nutrient content was calculated by summing the corresponding ingredient-specific nutritional values. Measures of agreement/difference were calculated between Italian- and US-FCDB-specific content of energy and macronutrients. Potential determinants of identified differences were investigated with multiple robust regression models.
resultsDishes showed a median mass of 145 g and included three ingredients in median. Energy, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates showed moderate-to-strong agreement between Italian- and US-FCDB-specific content; carbohydrates showed the worst performance, with the Italian FCDB providing smaller median values (median raw difference between the Italian and US FCDBs: -2.10 g). Regression models on dishes suggested a role for mass, number of ingredients, and presence of recreated recipes, alone or jointly with differential use of raw/cooked ingredients across the two FCDBs.
conclusionsIn the era of machine learning approaches for food image recognition, manual data curation in the alignment of FCDBs is worth the effort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.